The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Using Pharmacy Claims Data to Study Adherence to Glaucoma Medications: Methodology and Findings of the Glaucoma Adherence and Persistency Study (GAPS)
Open accessAbstract
PURPOSE: To develop methods for investigating adherence to glaucoma medications by using a modified claims data-based measure of adherence, validation by chart review, and patient and physician interviews. METHODS: Data from administrative claims of 13,956 subjects receiving an initial glaucoma medication, and data from overlapping samples of 300 patients' charts, 300 interviews of patients, and 103 interviews of physicians were analyzed and compared. RESULTS: The mean medication possession ratio (MPR) was 0.64 (median 0.57) for the 13,956 subjects. Although 59% potentially had an ocular hypotensive agent at 12 months, only 10% had such medication available continuously. Chart review revealed that 31% of subjects "new to therapy" in claims data had actually been previously treated; and that 90% of the 17% who had medication added to initial monotherapy were misclassified by claims-based algorithms as medication switches or no change. Twenty percent of surveyed patients received samples on a regular basis and had lower MPR than those who did not (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Large pharmacy databases offer insight into medication usage but are vulnerable to errors from sampling (since patients who receive samples will be considered to have poor adherence), misidentification of newly treated patients, and misclassification of added versus switched medications. That a large proportion of patients stop and restart medications makes MPR a robust measure of adherence over time that reflects the resumption of medication after a gap in adherence. The data confirm that adherence to treatment with glaucoma medications is poor, similar to adherence in patients with other chronic diseases.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases
DEYO, R. (1992) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/0895-4356(92)90133-8 · Cited by 10,452
Garber, M. C., Nau, D. P., Erickson, S. R., Aikens, J. E., & Lawrence, J. B. (2004) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000129496.05898.02 · Cited by 519
Helping Patients Follow Prescribed Treatment: Clinical Applications
Haynes, R. B., McDonald, H. P., & Garg, A. X. (2002) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.288.22.2880 · Cited by 98
Cited by
Quigley, H. A. (2011) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(10)61423-7 · Cited by 1,121
Self-citationPrimary Open-Angle Glaucoma Preferred Practice Pattern®
Gedde, S. J., Vinod, K., Wright, M. M., Muir, K. W., Lind, J. T., Chen, P. P., Li, T., & Mansberger, S. L. (2021) · Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2020.10.022 · Cited by 474
Adherence and Persistence with Glaucoma Therapy
Schwartz, G. F., & Quigley, H. A. (2008) · Survey of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.survophthal.2008.08.002 · Cited by 337
Self-citationTreatment Outcomes in the Primary Tube Versus Trabeculectomy Study after 1 Year of Follow-up
Gedde, S. J., Feuer, W. J., Shi, W., Lim, K. S., Barton, K., Goyal, S., Ahmed, I. I. K., Brandt, J., Gedde, S., Banitt, M., et al. (2018) · Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2018.02.003 · Cited by 322
Adherence with Topical Glaucoma Medication Monitored Electronically
Okeke, C. O., Quigley, H. A., Jampel, H. D., Ying, G.-S., Plyler, R. J., Jiang, Y., & Friedman, D. S. (2009) · Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.09.004 · Cited by 305
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Friedman, D. S., Quigley, H. A., Gelb, L., Tan, J., Margolis, J., Shah, S. N., Kim, E. E., Zimmerman, T., & Hahn, S. R.
- Venue
- Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science
- Published
- 2007-11-01
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 5052
- ISSN
- 0146-0404 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-5783
- OpenAlex
- W2068598411
- Cited by
- 281
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 11.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.